Monday, 2 February 2015

Brent Council environment cuts break 'cleaner and greener' pledge

I reproduce below Brent Friends of the Earth's comprehensive response to the current Budget Consultation. I am sure that similar responses could be written on other areas of the proposed cuts making it clear that the level of cuts now required is unacceptable and making no long-term economic or social sense.

Response to Brent Council
Budget Consultation from Brent Friends of the Earth

Our members are concerned about the cuts to Council services
overall, in particular cuts to vital front line services. Whilst we recognise that Brent's income has
been severely reduced, we do not wish to see
vital welfare services axed, especially those for children. The vision
of what will remain is stark and in some cases unrecognisable from the
provision residents have come to know and expect as Council services. However our comments as a group focus on the
impact of proposed cuts to environmental services. We also question whether
some of the cuts proposed will actually save money in the long run:

1. ENS1
Deletion of Environmental Projects and Policy team, with only carbon tax work
continuing.

-We strongly disagree with this proposal. This will leave only two junior staff in post, from a team of four, with no overall
manager. Work will be limited to
counting the Council's own emissions as statutory obliged.We are particularly concerned that there
will be no community engagement about sustainability and climate change. This will leave no scope for future
partnership and community work since there will be no one for residents or
community groups to liaise with. There
will be no community
work on sustainability and no resources for climate change mitigation in
Brent. These are major gaps.

-Work
on Brent's Climate Change Strategy, which the Council spent £40k on the launch
alone, with little tangible outcome since, will now be lost. What is the Council's commitment to pursuing
a climate change agenda? Having spent
many years involved working together with the Council on the development and
implementation of Brent's Climate Change strategy, our members are deeply concerned
that this work will effectively cease to continue. Brent was one of the first Local Authorities
to develop such a strategy. Moreover
since Brent signed up to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, later
known as Climate Local, surely it has an obligation to continue to maintain
this work?

-The loss of staff not only means the loss of much good work
on sustainability, but loss of expertise, local knowledge and continuity of
engagement with the public.

-There will be no officers responsible for the Green
Charter. How can it be implemented and
revised in future?

-We have also lost the Brent Sustainability Forum – a
Council, voluntary sector and community partnership to promote
sustainability. Can the Council support
such work in future? Engagement with the
voluntary sector and communities taps into wider resources on a range of issues
encompassing sustainability, waste and
recycling, energy etc. with various groups in the Borough.

-A Council Officer who has left the Environmental Projects
and Policy team has recently won a case against unfair dismissal. She now has no role to return to. Where does that leave her and the work she
was doing?

-The future of Brent's Fairtrade status is unclear. What commitment does Brent have to continue
this?

- The Welsh Harp Education Centre is a unique and well-used
resource within Brent which cannot easily be replaced. The specialist teaching facilities at the centre
offer a fantastic service to our schoolchildren to inspire and educate them
about nature. It would be a very great
loss to the Borough and its young residents should it close.

-Such work is particularly important for children growing up
in urban areas such as Brent, where they may not readily get the opportunity to
access natural environments. The
experience of being in nature is proven to enhance health and well-being. With children leading increasingly sedentary
and indoor lives, it is important for them to access this service and not be
deprived of the benefits it brings.
Encouraging children to develop a love of nature and being active
outdoors could reduce demand on health services for obesity and mental health,
with resultant cost savings.

-Schools are already paying a fee for this service, which is
currently oversubscribed. The savings to
be made here are relatively minimal. The
Centre offers excellent value for money.
We urge the Council to look again at how the Centre can continue this
important work by reinstating funding, part-funding, or by helping it seek
alternative finances. Can Careys who
currently pay some of the teaching costs be persuaded to make up the shortfall? How about inviting a community partnership to
run the Centre?

3. ENS5 and
R&G24 Cease grant to Energy Solutions

-Energy Solutions plays an unique and important role
advising residents, landlords, schools and businesses how to reduce fuel
bills. This reduces Brent's carbon
footprint and helps combat climate change.

-Many Brent residents are living in cold or poorly insulated
homes and experiencing fuel poverty.
They will not have anywhere else to go for advice. The loss of this service will have
significant costs to health and social welfare of these residents which will be
more costly to the Council in the long run.
The cost savings here are small and do not justify the loss of this
valuable service. It makes no sense
economically, or morally, to let it close.

-Given proposed cuts to the Environment Team (ENS1) the loss
of this service will leave a big gap in the Council's capacity to drive an
energy efficiency agenda as part of sustainability policy.

4. ENS16
Replacing existing street lighting with LEDs.

-We welcome this move and the carbon and cost savings it
will bring. This is the one
example of where the Council is investing wisely to reduce future costs.

-Can Brent invest wisely in renewable technologies such as
solar PV to take advantage of the Feed in Tariff elsewhere on its building
stock? This would save energy costs and
give a guaranteed income with approximately 8% interest on investments.

5. ENS11 Reduce the
Emergency Planning Team by one post – likely to require arrangement with
another borough to maintain 24/7 coverage

-Given the team has only two posts, this represents a
significant loss. This comes at a time
when climate change predictions point to more extreme weather events. This means that increased resources for
emergency preparedness are needed, not less.
Can the Council assure that staffing is adequate for these
challenges? Do cost savings for one
staff member justify potential increased costs in dealing with consequences of
this loss?

6. ENS26
Reduce street cleaning services with no litter clearing in residential roads,
no pavement mechanical sweepers and no weekend litter service in parks.

-The withdrawal of litter clearance in residential roads is
particularly abhorrent. This, along with
waste collection, is one of the key areas residents associate with Council
provision. Its absence will be
immediately visible and blight neighbourhoods.
It in turn will encourage more fly-tipping, and has implications for
public health – increased vermin etc.
Surely the Council has a legal obligation to continue this service?

-Pavement mechanical sweepers also serve an extremely
important role, sweeping litter, dust and leaves, and freeing drains. There could also be more flooding should this
be withdrawn.

-Withdrawal of weekend litter services in parks is equally
intolerable. As much as we would like
people to put litter in bins, take it home, or ideally re-use containers and
have zero waste, this is not a realistic prospect. Parks are readily blighted with litter
especially at weekends when they are most heavily used and enjoyed by the
public. This enjoyment will be readily
curtailed should the service disappear.
Increased litter in parks is also hazardous to wildlife.

-If dog waste bins are also not to be emptied at weekends,
this represents a further hazard to residents, especially children, and
wildlife.

7. ENS17
£50k less for street trees maintenance and re-procurement of the street tree
contract from April 16.

-We are concerned about these cuts, in particular that
corners will be cut to adequately maintain mature trees. In previous years we
have noticed heavy pollarding to reduce leaf growth, presumably to save on
street sweeping. However a healthy stock
of well maintained mature street trees has an important role in mopping up
pollution, carbon dioxide, and providing habitats for birds and other
wildlife. We want to be assured that any
future contract considers these aspects.

-As previously discussed with Officers we recommend that
tree species such as willow, lime and horse chestnut, which provide a
particularly rich source of pollen for bees, should be favoured when new trees
are planted. We would also want to
ensure that maintaining biodiversity is considered in any future contracts.

8. ENS12
Charging for garden waste

-We have commented previously that we do not agree with the
£40 per annum charge being
introduced. We were particularly
concerned that there was no public consultation about this service change, and
that so little discussion was afforded to it at Scrutiny Committee.

-The recent leaflets for households are poorly designed to
highlight this change, and have been delivered much later than the original
communications' timetable. Brent could
use voluntary and community groups to communicate with and advise residents
about waste and recycling. Schemes such
as Brent's Green Zones scheme was a prime example of residents working in
partnership with the Council to bring about a cost-saving and
community-engaging project.

-Given the experiences of Councils such as Birmingham, which
descended into chaos as a result of such charges, we question again the overall
savings. If uptake of the scheme is
poor, there will be more fly-tipping or
contamination of grey bins with uncollected green waste. It also gives rise to disputes with
neighbours – will the green bins have locks to secure them? If not what is being done to discourage
people from dumping waste in neighbours' bins?

-Despite fees for green bins being reduced for those on a
low income, the charge for compost bins has not been offered at a reduced rate. More imaginative schemes such as community
composting have not been offered as we previously suggested.

-Introducing a £15 charge for collecting any items,
replacing a previously free service for a limited number of collections a year
will discourage uptake of the service and lead to more fly-tipping. This is likely to be unpopular with residents
and a blight on neighbourhoods. Brent
could end up paying more to deal with more fly-tipping and not make savings
here.

-Will Brent publicise services such as Freecycle, furniture
re-use or other collection schemes, or the Restart project that repairs broken
electronics as alternatives?

10. R&G9
Cease providing a landscaping team with deletion of 2 posts

-This will impact on good design of our public spaces with
local expertise lost. Given flooding is
becoming more of a risk in some areas, does the Council have the capacity to
design out flood risk to these areas?

11.
R&G40 Rough sleepers services will end. This will lead to increases in people
sleeping rough.

-Given the current economic climate, high cost of renting
and severe lack of affordable housing, homelessness is clearly on the increase. There are already a considerable number of
rough sleepers in parks such as Gladstone park.
The withdrawal of this service coupled with reduced litter service in
parks will only make the situation worse.
Instead of parks being pleasant recreational green spaces they will
become litter strewn and spoilt, with encampments of destitute people with
nowhere else to go.

-It is likely to discourage families' enjoyment of parks and
public spaces as parents may not consider them safe to take their children or visit
alone. This together with other cuts to youth services we find particularly
disturbing. Women also may be deterred
from using them, raising issues of equality.

In all this paints a depressing picture for Brent's
commitment to the environment, sustainability and combating climate
change. It is certainly not the “cleaner
and greener” Brent that we were promised when the recent administration was
elected. We question if many of the
intended cost savings will in fact be realised, and what price Brent and its
residents will pay for them in the future.

Top Blogs

SEARCH WEMBLEY MATTERS

Brent Community Organisations

GET THE CLEANER BRENT APP

CONTACT YOUR LOCAL COUNCILLOR

RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS OF WEMBLEY MATTERS POSTINGS BY EMAIL

Total Pageviews

Comments and Guest blogs

The posts on this blog reflect my interests locally, nationally and internationally as an eco socialist.

COMMENTS

Comments are approved unless abusive, obscene, completely off the subject (or off the wall), disguised advertising or libellous. As I want to encourage debate publication of a comment does not imply that I agree with it.GUEST BLOGS

Contact me at martinrfrancis@virginmedia.com if you wish to submit a Guest Blog.

Follow by Email

Follow Wembley Matters on Twitter

As well as the main blog you can get news and updates on Twitter from Wembley Matters
Follow @WembleyMatters